run_decay_cycle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it runs decay and returns counts, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state permanently, whether it is idempotent, requires specific permissions, or blocks other operations). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states action and scope, second sentence describes return value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it defines the action, scope, and return value. The explanation of what it returns ('count of decayed and forgotten memories') compensates for missing output schema. Could be slightly improved by noting that it's a single pass and that forgotten memories are permanently removed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the description adds meaning by explaining the tool's behavior and scope ('across all agent memories'). This goes beyond the empty input schema, providing clarity on what the tool operates on.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'run' and the resource 'single pass of time-based importance decay across all agent memories'. It distinguishes from siblings like forget_weak_memories (which forgets specific weak memories) and get_decayed_memories (which lists decayed memories) by specifying a single pass across all memories and returning counts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when decay should be triggered, prerequisites (e.g., unidle state), or scenarios where other memory management tools like reinforce_memory or forget_weak_memories are more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.